Is starvation mode real or a myth?

[Anonymous]

Pp here, sorry for typos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Metabolisms and body sizes vary.

The habits that allow me to steadily lose weight at 150 lbs may only let me maintain my weight at 125, or even gain weight at 105.

This. As you lose weight, your caloric needs decrease. Therefore, to continue losing weight, you must either eat less calories or burn more calories through exercise. Most people I know stick to the same calories per day and then wonder why they are “plateauing”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starvation mode is real.
Weight loss is much more than calories in calories out, it's more about what you eat and when.
I'm loosing weight on 1800 kcal daily without excersising (just walking 10k steps).

how much do you weight?
I would also bet that you would lose even more weight faster if you ate 1200 calories a day. Not suggesting you do that as I think a more moderate deficit is better, but if you ate less you would not stop losing weight. People who claim to not lose weight on low calorie diets are not in "starvation mode" they are simply not really eating as low calorie as they want to believe.

Im 5'7, 190 now, down from 225, and I keep going, for quite some time, with couple of plateaus and setback
No, thank you, I won't do 1200 ever again, it's not sustainable in the long run. I'm done with yo-yo diets, they are not healthy. I'll keep eating my 1600-2000 kcal, slowly and steady loosing 1-2 lb a month until I reach my goal of 165 lb, hopefully by the end of this year.

I wasn't suggesting you eat 1200 calories. I was making the point though that eating fewer calories would not stop your metabolism or put you into starvation mode. It would, however, cause you to lose weight faster. i also inquired about your weight because starting at 225 with a goal weight of 165 it's no wonder you can eat 1800 cal and lose weight. That is expected. 1800 is a decent deficit for someone with that goal weight. Nothing you said in your post shows that starvation mode exists. It just shows what I always say. Eat in a calorie deficit and you will lose weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starvation mode is real.
Weight loss is much more than calories in calories out, it's more about what you eat and when.
I'm loosing weight on 1800 kcal daily without excersising (just walking 10k steps).

how much do you weight?
I would also bet that you would lose even more weight faster if you ate 1200 calories a day. Not suggesting you do that as I think a more moderate deficit is better, but if you ate less you would not stop losing weight. People who claim to not lose weight on low calorie diets are not in "starvation mode" they are simply not really eating as low calorie as they want to believe.

Im 5'7, 190 now, down from 225, and I keep going, for quite some time, with couple of plateaus and setback
No, thank you, I won't do 1200 ever again, it's not sustainable in the long run. I'm done with yo-yo diets, they are not healthy. I'll keep eating my 1600-2000 kcal, slowly and steady loosing 1-2 lb a month until I reach my goal of 165 lb, hopefully by the end of this year.

I wasn't suggesting you eat 1200 calories. I was making the point though that eating fewer calories would not stop your metabolism or put you into starvation mode. It would, however, cause you to lose weight faster. i also inquired about your weight because starting at 225 with a goal weight of 165 it's no wonder you can eat 1800 cal and lose weight. That is expected. 1800 is a decent deficit for someone with that goal weight. Nothing you said in your post shows that starvation mode exists. It just shows what I always say. Eat in a calorie deficit and you will lose weight.

Correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starvation mode is real.
Weight loss is much more than calories in calories out, it's more about what you eat and when.
I'm loosing weight on 1800 kcal daily without excersising (just walking 10k steps).

It is calories in vs calories out. But how do you really know what your calories out are? It depends on your basal metabolic rate. And starvation diets will make your BMR plummet.

You also don't really know what calories are in - really depends on individual metabolism of fat and carbs, also how good you chew your food, etc. Calories on the lable are not equal to calories your body would use in energy metabolism. For example, protein is mainly used in groth and repair, and only once those functons are covered, can potentially be used as energy source. Yet, all 4 kcal per gram of protein counted as part of your calories in. Sometimes fats are not metabolised at all, they go in and out unprocessed, Alli mechanism is based on that concept. But again you count those 9 kcal per gram as calories in.
So, you don't know your in, you don't know your outs, yet it works ?? Seriously?
If simple methods calories in - calories out was working, weight loss would be easy. Yet here we are

your post makes no sense. Sure we don't know with 100% certainty how many calories we burn on a given day. We also don't know with 100% certainty how many we consume because calories listed for foods are averages. Still we can get a decent idea of how many calories we are consuming. If you are eating X and losing weight then you are in a deficit. If you are eating x calories and not losing then you are not in a deficit. Can't change the laws of thermodynamics. Now sometimes we think we are eating x but in reality we are not tracking accurately or consistently and relay eating a lot more.

now there is a lot of gray area in there are people tend to not track accurately or consistently. You see it here all the time. Someone says they are eating some crazy low number of calories and have been doing so for months and can't lose wight. But I would bet my life that they are not really eating that low number of calories consistently (Exception being a legit metabolic issue, which is usually not the case). What typically happens is someone eat that crazy low number, let's say it is 1200 calories for a few days or maybe even a week, but it's not sustainable,. They are incredibly hungry all the time so they binge or overeat here and there. Another issue is people are not as consistent at they thing. They hit their calorie target for a few days then go ff the rails on the weekend and it cancels out everything else.

Then you have people who say they are "eating more than before and losing weight. must be because I am eating more and out of starvation mode." But the reality is they are losing because they are in a more sustainable deficit. Because they aren't eating a crazy low number of calories, they feel more satisfied overall, aren't depriving themselves, are allowed to include most foods in moderation and thus have a better chance of adhering to their diet and consistently hitting their calorie deficit target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metabolisms and body sizes vary.

The habits that allow me to steadily lose weight at 150 lbs may only let me maintain my weight at 125, or even gain weight at 105.

This. As you lose weight, your caloric needs decrease. Therefore, to continue losing weight, you must either eat less calories or burn more calories through exercise. Most people I know stick to the same calories per day and then wonder why they are “plateauing”.

+1
there is no starvation mode, your metabolism doesn’t slow down when you eat little. however as you lose weight you need to eat less and less just to maintain. if you want want to maintain say 105 lbs you need to eat 1000-1200 or exercise a lot. that’s not dieting, not starvation mode, just what a small person needs to eat to maintain her weight.

[Anonymous]

Well, there is a lady 5'7 185 plateauing on 1200 (still on this page) Is she undercounting her calories by roughly 60-70% ( you said 1800 is deficit for 5'7 190, so I assume no deficit means 2000) or she is in starvation mode? What's your advice for her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, there is a lady 5'7 185 plateauing on 1200 (still on this page) Is she undercounting her calories by roughly 60-70% ( you said 1800 is deficit for 5'7 190, so I assume no deficit means 2000) or she is in starvation mode? What's your advice for her?

DP, but I’d advise her to increase her calories for a few days, and then go back to measuring her 1200. It’s easy to get complacent and start eyeballing you’re amounts. You also don’t know where her deficit is, or how much it is, which is why another PP mentioned that it’s very hard to calculate calories out.

But let’s be realistic - she’s been at the same weight for only 2 weeks, after losing. That’s a plateau, and not unexpected in a weight loss journey. 2 weeks of “gain” can be hormonal weight, retained water due to DOMS (she did say she is lifting heavier and adding in more cardio, both of which can increase weight at first). Weight loss is not always linear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starvation mode is real.
Weight loss is much more than calories in calories out, it's more about what you eat and when.
I'm loosing weight on 1800 kcal daily without excersising (just walking 10k steps).

how much do you weight?
I would also bet that you would lose even more weight faster if you ate 1200 calories a day. Not suggesting you do that as I think a more moderate deficit is better, but if you ate less you would not stop losing weight. People who claim to not lose weight on low calorie diets are not in "starvation mode" they are simply not really eating as low calorie as they want to believe.

Im 5'7, 190 now, down from 225, and I keep going, for quite some time, with couple of plateaus and setback
No, thank you, I won't do 1200 ever again, it's not sustainable in the long run. I'm done with yo-yo diets, they are not healthy. I'll keep eating my 1600-2000 kcal, slowly and steady loosing 1-2 lb a month until I reach my goal of 165 lb, hopefully by the end of this year.

I wasn't suggesting you eat 1200 calories. I was making the point though that eating fewer calories would not stop your metabolism or put you into starvation mode. It would, however, cause you to lose weight faster. i also inquired about your weight because starting at 225 with a goal weight of 165 it's no wonder you can eat 1800 cal and lose weight. That is expected. 1800 is a decent deficit for someone with that goal weight. Nothing you said in your post shows that starvation mode exists. It just shows what I always say. Eat in a calorie deficit and you will lose weight.

Eat with too much of calorie deficit - and you're in starvation mode, your bmr slows down, slow bmr means you need to eat even less or exercise more to keep loosing weight and so on. So my point - don't go too low in your calorie intake, it is a recipe for disaster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, there is a lady 5'7 185 plateauing on 1200 (still on this page) Is she undercounting her calories by roughly 60-70% ( you said 1800 is deficit for 5'7 190, so I assume no deficit means 2000) or she is in starvation mode? What's your advice for her?

My advice to her would be to be patient. Keep doing what you’re doing if you are really being accurate and consistent in counting and tracking. I also recommend weighing daily to see the trend. Weight loss is not linear. Weight fluctuates.

Starvation mode does not exist. And if it did I can tell you you’re body would not adapt that quickly.

[Anonymous]

While a drastic cut in calories below what you are burning per day is going to make you lose weight (calories in less than calories out), and no one eating 1200 calories month after month is going to not eventually lose weight (and many people misreport how many calories they are consuming per day), starvation mode is a thing in that it effects a) your basal metabolic rate slightly b) your hormonal profile and tendency to release cortisol and retain fat, especially around your midsection and c) minor changes to thermoregulation, spontaneous movement (fidgeting, etc.), menstruation, muscle hypertrophy, and other physiological functions. Your body is intelligent and it will conserve calories if the deficit is too steep and shut down functions it considers unessential.

You can make your body more apt to store fat rather than lean tissue and cause your body to burn calories at a slightly lower rate meaning you need to eat less and less to continue to lose weight (beyond that once you lose weight, your BMR is lower). Although basal metabolic rate is mostly determined by body size, there can be minor variations of 100-300 calories per day and your body can normalize to the lower end of this range. Your body is going to shut down functions it considers unessential, and it's going to become more lethargic so you move and fidget less over the day. The amount of calories/body weight will slow down if you restrict too much. It can also cause your immune system to shut down, mess up your hormones, and it hinder how much fitness you are able to gain (e.g. gains in strength from strength training, or gains in cardiovascular conditioning from aerobic exercise) from working out. It can also mess up your thyroid.

For this reason, typically when losing weight, deficits of ~300-500 calories/day (~1 lb/week) is considered more sustainable than going on a rapid 1200/day diet. Certainly less potential for affecting your health in a negative way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While a drastic cut in calories below what you are burning per day is going to make you lose weight (calories in less than calories out), and no one eating 1200 calories month after month is going to not eventually lose weight (and many people misreport how many calories they are consuming per day), starvation mode is a thing in that it effects a) your basal metabolic rate slightly b) your hormonal profile and tendency to release cortisol and retain fat, especially around your midsection and c) minor changes to thermoregulation, spontaneous movement (fidgeting, etc.), menstruation, muscle hypertrophy, and other physiological functions. Your body is intelligent and it will conserve calories if the deficit is too steep and shut down functions it considers unessential.

You can make your body more apt to store fat rather than lean tissue and cause your body to burn calories at a slightly lower rate meaning you need to eat less and less to continue to lose weight (beyond that once you lose weight, your BMR is lower). Although basal metabolic rate is mostly determined by body size, there can be minor variations of 100-300 calories per day and your body can normalize to the lower end of this range. Your body is going to shut down functions it considers unessential, and it's going to become more lethargic so you move and fidget less over the day. The amount of calories/body weight will slow down if you restrict too much. It can also cause your immune system to shut down, mess up your hormones, and it hinder how much fitness you are able to gain (e.g. gains in strength from strength training, or gains in cardiovascular conditioning from aerobic exercise) from working out. It can also mess up your thyroid.

For this reason, typically when losing weight, deficits of ~300-500 calories/day (~1 lb/week) is considered more sustainable than going on a rapid 1200/day diet. Certainly less potential for affecting your health in a negative way.

this is all nonsense. i mean iif one doest eat a single thing for a month, maybe some of it is true, but to talk about this in respect to 1200 per day is a LOL. 1200 is more than what many women need to merely maintain their weight. 1200 is a lot of calories... it's just that people are fat and eat a lot and feel they are starving when they eat the amount their body actually needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While a drastic cut in calories below what you are burning per day is going to make you lose weight (calories in less than calories out), and no one eating 1200 calories month after month is going to not eventually lose weight (and many people misreport how many calories they are consuming per day), starvation mode is a thing in that it effects a) your basal metabolic rate slightly b) your hormonal profile and tendency to release cortisol and retain fat, especially around your midsection and c) minor changes to thermoregulation, spontaneous movement (fidgeting, etc.), menstruation, muscle hypertrophy, and other physiological functions. Your body is intelligent and it will conserve calories if the deficit is too steep and shut down functions it considers unessential.

You can make your body more apt to store fat rather than lean tissue and cause your body to burn calories at a slightly lower rate meaning you need to eat less and less to continue to lose weight (beyond that once you lose weight, your BMR is lower). Although basal metabolic rate is mostly determined by body size, there can be minor variations of 100-300 calories per day and your body can normalize to the lower end of this range. Your body is going to shut down functions it considers unessential, and it's going to become more lethargic so you move and fidget less over the day. The amount of calories/body weight will slow down if you restrict too much. It can also cause your immune system to shut down, mess up your hormones, and it hinder how much fitness you are able to gain (e.g. gains in strength from strength training, or gains in cardiovascular conditioning from aerobic exercise) from working out. It can also mess up your thyroid.

For this reason, typically when losing weight, deficits of ~300-500 calories/day (~1 lb/week) is considered more sustainable than going on a rapid 1200/day diet. Certainly less potential for affecting your health in a negative way.

this is all nonsense. i mean iif one doest eat a single thing for a month, maybe some of it is true, but to talk about this in respect to 1200 per day is a LOL. 1200 is more than what many women need to merely maintain their weight. 1200 is a lot of calories... it's just that people are fat and eat a lot and feel they are starving when they eat the amount their body actually needs.

1200 calories per day is not more than most women need to maintain their weight. Considering the amount you need if you are in a coma is typically close to 10-11 x your weight in lbs (back of an envelope estimate, of course depends on age, muscle composition, and can vary 100-200 calories per person of equal body weights), most women would need to be under 110 lbs to need 1200 to maintain their weight if all the did was lay in bed all day. Then if you expend any calories going to work, chasing kids, doing chores, you are going to burn at a minimum a few hundred calories over that. If you work out, even more. If people think they need 1200 calories to maintain their weight, they are probably undercounting how many calories they actually consume 99% of the time.

While my familiarity with this is mostly with regard to active women, and I'm not sure how big of an issue it is for sedentary women, I have known several women work with sports registered dietician to dial this in. One of my friends realized she was underconsuming by about 600 calories per day while marathon training and a) her body was absorbing her training as efficiently and b) she wasn't leaning down as much as she expected to and her body was holding on to the last bit of body fat. When she started eating a smaller caloric deficit and then once she got to her desired body composition, not being in a deficit at all, her weight stabilized at 5 lbs lower than it was.

There is definitely all kinds of hormonal effects that come from big caloric deficits. Obviously you will lose weight if your calorie intake is consistently low, but it can also stall out weight loss per calorie taken in/lb bodyweight. Additionally, it can cause a lot of health issues. Most people eat too much and overcount how many calories they are eating when they can't lose weight. But we are Americans and we do everything in extremes--once people go on diets they want to go on a rapid weight loss diet. That isn't the healthiest approach either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While a drastic cut in calories below what you are burning per day is going to make you lose weight (calories in less than calories out), and no one eating 1200 calories month after month is going to not eventually lose weight (and many people misreport how many calories they are consuming per day), starvation mode is a thing in that it effects a) your basal metabolic rate slightly b) your hormonal profile and tendency to release cortisol and retain fat, especially around your midsection and c) minor changes to thermoregulation, spontaneous movement (fidgeting, etc.), menstruation, muscle hypertrophy, and other physiological functions. Your body is intelligent and it will conserve calories if the deficit is too steep and shut down functions it considers unessential.

You can make your body more apt to store fat rather than lean tissue and cause your body to burn calories at a slightly lower rate meaning you need to eat less and less to continue to lose weight (beyond that once you lose weight, your BMR is lower). Although basal metabolic rate is mostly determined by body size, there can be minor variations of 100-300 calories per day and your body can normalize to the lower end of this range. Your body is going to shut down functions it considers unessential, and it's going to become more lethargic so you move and fidget less over the day. The amount of calories/body weight will slow down if you restrict too much. It can also cause your immune system to shut down, mess up your hormones, and it hinder how much fitness you are able to gain (e.g. gains in strength from strength training, or gains in cardiovascular conditioning from aerobic exercise) from working out. It can also mess up your thyroid.

For this reason, typically when losing weight, deficits of ~300-500 calories/day (~1 lb/week) is considered more sustainable than going on a rapid 1200/day diet. Certainly less potential for affecting your health in a negative way.

this is all nonsense. i mean iif one doest eat a single thing for a month, maybe some of it is true, but to talk about this in respect to 1200 per day is a LOL. 1200 is more than what many women need to merely maintain their weight. 1200 is a lot of calories... it's just that people are fat and eat a lot and feel they are starving when they eat the amount their body actually needs.

I do not believe in "starvation mode", but i can tell you most women need more than 1200 calories/day to maintain their weight. the exception being a women who weigh 100 lbs. Anyone who says they ear eating 1200 cal and not losing weight is delusional and most likely not tracking accurately or eating 1200 cal consistently.

Now will metabolic rate slow down some on very low calorie diets, yes. but this is due to the fact that low calorie diets, especially ones without sufficient protein and where heavy weigh lifting in not involved, will also cause someone to lose a lot of muscle along with the fat. Loss of muscle decrease metabolic rate. This is also one of the big reasons our metabolism slows as we age; we are less active and lose muscle mass which decreases metabolic rate. Losing fat will decrease energy needs as well because someone who weights 200 lbs does not have the same caloric needs as someone who weights 150 lbs. but again, this reduction is not so sever that you will notice and it is not the reason some one has "plateaued" after a few weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While a drastic cut in calories below what you are burning per day is going to make you lose weight (calories in less than calories out), and no one eating 1200 calories month after month is going to not eventually lose weight (and many people misreport how many calories they are consuming per day), starvation mode is a thing in that it effects a) your basal metabolic rate slightly b) your hormonal profile and tendency to release cortisol and retain fat, especially around your midsection and c) minor changes to thermoregulation, spontaneous movement (fidgeting, etc.), menstruation, muscle hypertrophy, and other physiological functions. Your body is intelligent and it will conserve calories if the deficit is too steep and shut down functions it considers unessential.

You can make your body more apt to store fat rather than lean tissue and cause your body to burn calories at a slightly lower rate meaning you need to eat less and less to continue to lose weight (beyond that once you lose weight, your BMR is lower). Although basal metabolic rate is mostly determined by body size, there can be minor variations of 100-300 calories per day and your body can normalize to the lower end of this range. Your body is going to shut down functions it considers unessential, and it's going to become more lethargic so you move and fidget less over the day. The amount of calories/body weight will slow down if you restrict too much. It can also cause your immune system to shut down, mess up your hormones, and it hinder how much fitness you are able to gain (e.g. gains in strength from strength training, or gains in cardiovascular conditioning from aerobic exercise) from working out. It can also mess up your thyroid.

For this reason, typically when losing weight, deficits of ~300-500 calories/day (~1 lb/week) is considered more sustainable than going on a rapid 1200/day diet. Certainly less potential for affecting your health in a negative way.

this is all nonsense. i mean iif one doest eat a single thing for a month, maybe some of it is true, but to talk about this in respect to 1200 per day is a LOL. 1200 is more than what many women need to merely maintain their weight. 1200 is a lot of calories... it's just that people are fat and eat a lot and feel they are starving when they eat the amount their body actually needs.

I do not believe in "starvation mode", but i can tell you most women need more than 1200 calories/day to maintain their weight. the exception being a women who weigh 100 lbs. Anyone who says they ear eating 1200 cal and not losing weight is delusional and most likely not tracking accurately or eating 1200 cal consistently.

Now will metabolic rate slow down some on very low calorie diets, yes. but this is due to the fact that low calorie diets, especially ones without sufficient protein and where heavy weigh lifting in not involved, will also cause someone to lose a lot of muscle along with the fat. Loss of muscle decrease metabolic rate. This is also one of the big reasons our metabolism slows as we age; we are less active and lose muscle mass which decreases metabolic rate. Losing fat will decrease energy needs as well because someone who weights 200 lbs does not have the same caloric needs as someone who weights 150 lbs. but again, this reduction is not so sever that you will notice and it is not the reason some one has "plateaued" after a few weeks.

an average woman in the USA is 5 4. most women are supposed to weigh no more than 120 lbs. that is 1200 per day or less to maintain.